Improving workplace-based assessment and feedback by an E-portfolio enhanced with learning analytics
Open accessAbstract
Electronic portfolios (E-portfolios) are crucial means for workplace-based assessment and feedback. Although E-portfolios provide a useful approach to view each learner’s progress, so far options for personalized feedback and potential data about a learner’s performances at the workplace often remain unexploited. This paper advocates that E-portfolios enhanced with learning analytics, might increase the quality and efficiency of workplace-based feedback and assessment in professional education. Based on a 5-phased iterative design approach, an existing E-portfolio environment was enhanced with learning analytics in professional education. First, information about crucial professional activities for professional domains and suited assessment instruments were collected (phase 1). Thereafter probabilistic student models were defined (phase 2). Next, personalized feedback and visualization of the personal development over time were developed (phase 3). Then the prototype of the E-portfolio—including the student models and feedback and visualization modules—were implemented in professional training-programs (phase 4). Last, evaluation cycles took place and 121 students and 30 supervisors from five institutes for professional education evaluated the perceived usefulness of the design (phase 5). It was concluded that E-portfolios with learning analytics were perceived to assist the development of students’ professional competencies and that the design is only successful when developed and implemented through the eyes of the users. Feedback and assessment methods based upon learning analytics can stimulate learning at the workplace in the long run. Practical, technological and ethical challenges are discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Van der Schaaf et al. (2017) reported that LA enhanced the quality and efficiency of feedback in professional education.
“Van der Schaaf et al. (2017) reported that LA enhanced the quality and efficiency of feedback in professional education.”
From A systematic review of the role of learning analytics in enhancing feedback practices in higher education (2022) · cites this paper as Van der Schaaf et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 82
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Butler, P. (2006). A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios. Palmerston North: Massey University College of Education.
- Duijn, C. C. M. A., Van Dijk, E. J., Bok, H. G. J., Mandoki, M., & Ten Cate, O. (2016). Workplace-based assessment tools for feedback and entrustment decisions in medical education: a systematic review. Manuscript submitted for publication.
- Wisman-Zwarter, N., Van der Schaaf, M., Ten Cate, O. T., Jonker, G., Van Klei, W. A., & Hoff, R. (2016). Defining the content of Anaesthesiology training with entrustable professional activities. A delphi study. European J Anest, 33(8), 559-567.
- Authors
- van der Schaaf, M., Donkers, J., Slof, B., Moonen-van Loon, J., van Tartwijk, J., Driessen, E., Badii, A., Serban, O., & Ten Cate, O.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- University of Reading (GB)
- Venue
- Educational Technology Research and Development
- Published
- 2016-11-04
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 359-380
- ISSN
- 1042-1629 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-6501
- OpenAlex
- W2548122891
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 5.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Educational Technology Research and Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, Project WatchMe (619349)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
- Keywords
- e-portfolio, learning analytics, workplace-based assessment, personalized feedback, professional education, professional competence, supervisor feedback, iterative design, learning visualization, workplace learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
